From: lukas.mariman@REMOVETHISdommel.be   
      
   Netrunner wrote:   
   > Standing in the dark, rainy shadows of a city alleyway, I spied the   
   > Replicant Sentinel covertly transmitting a message to renegade friends   
   > in alt.fan.blade-runner.  Tracking...   
   >   
   >> Gnomus wrote:   
   >>>>>> ...   
   >>>>>> More subtle? With the VO and the "happy ending"?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> No, in terms of the whole Deck-a-rep thing.  It's gotten to the   
   >>>>> point where Ridley Scott is calling people morons if they don't   
   >>>>> get it.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Well, he was clearly being in a joking mood when he said that, for   
   >>>> whatever that is worth.   
   >>>   
   >>> Was he?  I'll have to watch it again.   
   >>   
   >> Well, he was laughing, so I wouldn't take that *too* serious. He   
   >> obviously has a sense of humour about it.   
   >   
   > What kinda irritates me is how he talks about how interesting the   
   > whole idea of the ambiguity was, but then goes right on and says that   
   > Deckard is a Replicant.   
      
   The way I see it...   
      
   *Deckard is a replicant*, because that is what Ridley Scott put in (t)his   
   film.   
      
   I can understand how people feel the issue should have been left ambiguous,   
   but it really is not. *That* is what the unicorn is about; *that* is why we   
   see Deckard with the Glowing Eyes.   
      
   This is not a matter of "opinion" as some like to pretend it is. Also,   
   saying Scott doesn't have the final word in this matter is IMHO utterly   
   silly. Deck-a-rep was his idea in the first place. How can you seriously   
   maintain that the man is not qualified to judge about his own subtext? How   
   can the director (who in this case was so thoroughly involved with the   
   project from the start) be casually ignored, just because you don't like the   
   notion of Deckard possibly being a replicant?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)